The baitcast reel is used widely, but has an inherent shortcoming called backlash, which numerous patents have attempted to address. Backlash occurs when the reel spool overruns the outgoing line, causing the line to be caught and pulled back under the rotating spool, resulting in a knotted tangle of line in the “backlash zone”. Said another way, backlash happens when more line is fed into the backlash zone of the baitcast reel than is pulled out.
Prior art has addressed this deficiency in three primary ways:
1. Braking Without Direct Feedback (Magnetic, Electrical, Mechanical, Centrifugal.) (See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 321,925; 4,142,694; 4,549,703; 4,585,183; 4,674,699; 4,733,831; 4,821,975; 5,318,245; 6,086,005; 6,126,105; 6,206,311; 6,412,722).
This approach addresses the backlash problem by slowing the rotation of the reel. This is done irrespective of the actual outgoing line velocity, with a major drawback being that it effectively reduces casting distance. In spite of this braking, and regardless of the manner of its application, backlash still occurs regularly with reels employing this design. Braking of this sort is marginally effective overall only if the user of the reel customizes his casting speed and style, and also makes manual brake settings adjustments. Usually, manual “thumbing” of the reel spool is further required to eliminate backlash. In addition, changes from cast to cast in wind conditions, lure weights and lure wind profiles require continuous manual changes by the reel user to minimize backlash.
All reels currently on the market that claim to address the problem of backlash utilize some variation on braking without direct feedback.
2. Braking with Line Tension Feedback (See, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,205,641; 4,196,871; 5,289,992; 5,749,533; 6,045,076; 6,109,555)
In theory, this approach is much more effective than braking without any line condition feedback. In practice, this method fails to eliminate the problem. Its weakness lies in the fact that extremely small changes in line tension can be indicative of very large differences in line/spool speeds. Thus it has proven very difficult to measure line tension to the level of precision required for minute feedback changes. In addition, the line tension is inherently prone to variation from factors other than outgoing line velocity. These variables include wind conditions, line friction in the rod guides, line conditions (wet, dry), line stiffness, temperature, etc. In spite of prior art dating from 1943, because of these shortcomings no reel currently on the market utilizes any form of line tension feedback.
3. Braking with line Acceleration or Velocity Feedback
Park U.S. Pat. No. 5,833,156, Hamayasu U.S. Pat. No. 4,402,470 and Thomas U.S. Pat. No. 5,577,679 all employ some form of line acceleration or velocity feedback.
Park's primary embodiment utilizes an accelerometer attached to the line near the lure, which feeds back accelerations over time through an optical fiber in the fishing line. This data is mathematically integrated to obtain a velocity, which is compared to the spool velocity. This approach requires the complexity of a special device attached to the fishing line, as well as a special data-transferring fishing line. In addition, it measures acceleration, not velocity directly.
Thomas relies on “detectable” material in the fishing line to obtain line velocity. The drawback of this approach lies in the necessity of having available a fishing line with optic, magnetic or radioactive properties which can be sensed or detected.
Hamayasu, similarly, relies on the line having optical or magnetic properties so that photosensitive or magnetically sensitive sensors can be used to calculate outgoing line velocity.
These three patents all require a special fishing line to achieve the line velocity feedback. To date none of these inventions are available on the market, in part because of the unavailability of the special line.
In addition, most prior art reels, as well as the only reel currently on the market claiming to minimize (although not prevent) backlash, the Shimano Calcutta TE/DC™, use a form of spool velocity feedback; that is, they measure spool speed rather than the actual backlash condition, which is inherently problematic because the spool speed is not directly indicative of the actual backlash condition.
All prior art baitcast reels have a manual adjusting device that mechanically brakes the spool to help eliminate backlash. This brake is usually applied to the end of the spool spindle, and it impedes the rotation of the spool throughout the cast, reducing the chance of backlash by limiting the initial spool velocity and greatly reducing casting distance. Many reels call it a “cast control knob” or a “cast control cap”. Backlash would be severe in any of these reels without this adjusting device, which adds weight, complexity and cost to the reels. The reel of the present invention negates the need for the cast control knob, allowing for longer casts and obviating the need for adjustments when changing lures of differing weights.
So the object of eliminating backlash remains unsatisfactorily addressed by the prior art and by the marketplace.